Good afternoon. When I called earlier today, Ashley said you were not at
your desk, and she suggested I email you, so I am trying to be timely in my
reply. I have questions about H.R. 2028, The Private Student Loan Bankruptcy
Fairness Act of 2011, and also H.R. 4170, The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of
2012.

I am the editor-in-chief of The Register, a conservative research blog,
and also the most successful litigant on the pro-life side of the landmark
'Terri Schiavo' case, almost winning my case (see
citation below). Since that is a far-fetched claim, I invited Ashley
to Google my phone number from her caller ID and verify my claims that I am
indeed as 'conservative' as (or more so than) your Congressman, so you all would
rest assured that I am 'on your side' when the pen becomes mightier than the
sword – and apparently Ashley, much to her credit, did (see email attachment of
web tracker)
.

First, my
sources inform me that Rep. Smith, in his capacity of chair of the House
Judiciary Committee, tabled HR 2028, and gave the following reply to a
constituent (see the attached screen shot to
verify) about why he won't support HR 2028.

"Thank you for
contacting me about H.R. 2028, the Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness Act
of 2011. Current bankruptcy law prevents a debtor from discharging student loan
debts except when the inability to repay the loan results from an undue
hardship. The non-dischargeability of student loans is actually a benefit to
borrowers: it makes loans less risky, so lenders charge a relatively low
interest rate. Currently, a student borrower can borrow for about 2-5% from a
private lender. In comparison, credit card debt, which is dischargeable in
bankruptcy, usually bears a double-digit interest rate.

The Private Student Loan Bankruptcy Fairness
Act amends the Bankruptcy Code so that only private student loans may be
discharged in bankruptcy; government-sponsored loans would remain
non-dischargeable. The bill discriminates in the student-loan market on the
basis of what type of entity—public or private—is making the loan. H.R. 2028
would result in private student lenders' charging substantially higher interest
rates for their products, possibly to the point at which those lenders are no
longer competitive with government-subsidized loans. I do not support this
legislation because I do not want to deprive students of the ability to borrow
from private lenders at competitive market rates"(end of quote)

I have been
commissioned by my boss, who is apparently incensed over this issue, to write
news and opinion on these bill, and I've been given wide leeway as to how I will
edotirialise this issue.

It is my
judgment, as a solid conservative, that Rep. Smith has dishonoured his
conservative heritage in a number of ways, and I am planning to write just this,
but before I do so, I would like to give the Congressman and his staff full
opportunity to compare notes with me before I write that he is off-centre and in
“liberal” left field here. – Briefly, here are my concerns:

First,
regarding HR 2028 (2011), assuming my sources are correct on Mr. Smith's stance
above (are they?), he is correct in his
factual assertion that instituting bankruptcy protections for private Student
Loans would scare banks, and thus drive up Interest Rates to compensate, and
thereby make Private Student Loans less available. Additionally, Rep. Smith
makes a claim that 2028 is prejudiced or discriminates, that is, addresses only
Private Student Loans, not Federal ones.

Lamar is
correct on all points, above; h owever, he strays from the 'conservative
camp' in a very disturbing way after that:

(#1) First
off, Rep. Smith is 'liberal' in his statement that
“I do not want to deprive students of the
ability to borrow from private lenders.” When the government
steps in and removes Standard Consumer Protections from 'Private' Loans,
this is 'Big Government' intervention (making said loans less private and more
Federal). No true conservative likes Big Government meddling, because this
distorts the Free Market. (Specifically, colleges charge more when they know
students can not file for bankruptcy, and predatory lending results.)

(#2) Although
he did not address Federal Loans directly, his silence here is all the proof I
need that Rep. Smith is in favour of Federal Loans (whether the Federal
Government makes the loan or merely guarantees it -both have been done). This is
the worst form of liberal 'Big Government' meddling, because the 'easy loan'
monies are precisely what distorted the Free Market in the housing market
(think: sub-prime crisis), and caused a Housing Bubble. POINT: Both 'Big
Government' meddling AND distortion of the 'Free Market' are also blue-state 'liberal.'

In layman's
terms, every time U.S. Congress raised the loan limits for Student Loans,
colleges raised prices to match, because they knew students could afford more.
This drove the tuition to increase at a rate MUCH faster than inflation, which
was not justified, since U.S. Higher Education is gone DOWN in recent years, as
America continues to fall behind other nations in math and the sciences –and the
workforce.

Additionally,
since tuition has gone through the roof, and an education become unaffordable,
College Debt has, for the first time in America's history, surpassed Credit Card
debt, which was a prime driver of the default rates having soared.

The
record-high default rates among student borrowers (who were just trying to
better themselves) have resulted in reports that the suicide among students have
become MUCH more frequent, and somebody has blood on their hands. Suicide, while
not morally 'right,' nonetheless is a reality: It is what it is, and this
disturbing new trend didn't happen without cause or reason.

(#3) Since
this intervention has driven tuition up, students are over-taxed: Tuition
is legally a tax, by the definition: It is funding going into an arm of the
government, State Colleges, in most cases, an arm of State Government: Students
are over-taxed, and this is LIBERAL.

Students
should not get a free handout (free education), as this, too is liberal, but in
any bankruptcy proceedings, the person discharging a loan here usually has to
pay something and usually does NOT get off “Scot free.”

(#4) You saw
the issue of suicide above, and this is a fact, as documented in this Research
Paper:

Any 'True
Conservative' understands “Conservative Moral Rights and Wrongs,” and it is is
morally wrong (and liberal) to allow students to enter indentured servitude, a
form of debt slavery, simply because they must get an education to have a chance
to get a job, support themselves, and have a meaningful chance to enjoy the
rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

While we're on
the topic of slavery, Kim, let me remind you that “those Democrats” (and other
liberals) regularly portray us Republicans and Conservatives as 'prejudiced' and
'against Blacks,' 'for slavery' and other things I can not even begin to name.
However, some of their criticisms are true, and we must own up to that and stop
at once! Slavery, no matter the oppressed group (be it Blacks, Native Americans,
or 'debt slaves') are slaves just the same, and that is either right or wrong:
It is wrong.

(#5) Another
'moral' point here: If Credit Card users can have all the Standard Consumer
Protections that almost all borrowers have (e.g., truth in lending; bankruptcy
proceedings; statutes of limits; the right to refinance; adherence to usury
laws; and, Fair Debt & Collection practices, etc.), then why not students? –
Is that 'morally right?'

Now, as I said
earlier, Lamar was right in his claims that 2028 was discriminatory (aka
'prejudiced') against Federal Loans. However, if he is sincere about his claims,
I would think he should write a bill that restores all Std Cons Protections to
both Private and Federal loans, because the present state of affairs
“discriminates” against (is prejudiced against) all student loans. Mr. Smith's
use of the word 'discriminates' is correct, so he should take steps to fix the
problem: The law is prejudiced against students.

(#6) Red State
Conservatives honour the 'Rule of Law,' and yet do
nothing when colleges and Universities have a monopoly on American Higher
Education, and collude to keep tuition unattainably high. The definition of a
monopoly is easily-found: It is:

mo·nop·o·ly –
[muh-nop-uh-lee]

noun, plural -lies.

1. exclusive control of a commodity
or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the
manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2. an exclusive privilege to carry on
a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

3. the exclusive possession or
control of something.

4. something that is the subject of
such control, as a commodity or service.

Americans
colleges do have exclusive control of Higher Education in America, not unlike
power and utility companies (whose prices are regulated to prevent illegal
monopoly), but students are a much smaller population than home-owners &
renters, so it seems that they are not protected similarly, even while power
companies & utilities (gas, water, telephone, Internet, etc.), are not
allowed to jack up prices. (In other words, colleges are guilty as well as liberals in the Federal Government, but the same
liberal Federal Lawmakers allow this illegal
monopoly to exist, unconcerned regarding the 'Conservative Rule of
Law.')

Critics often
say students have “many” choices for college in America, and that is true:
However, NONE of these choices is affordable, thus there is a monopoly by the
legal definition, and this is illegal and immoral (as well as impractical:
America is becoming dumbed-down, as we can not afford to obtain an
education).

CONCLUSION: H.R.
2028

So, in
conclusion regarding HR 2028, I'd like to know whether Rep. Smith's views are
indeed what he is alleged to have told a constituent. If so, the op-ed piece
will not look good, but rest assured, I am not “out to get” anyone, most
especially my conservative fellow-Republicans in Congress, and if we can compare
notes, I will do my part to be respectful and accurate in my upcoming
Editorial.

Now,
regarding, H.R. 4170, The Student Loan
Forgiveness Act of 2012:

It has been introduced by U.S. Rep. Hansen Clarke
(D-MI-13th), and you can read the text: It is all of 18 pages
long, not a lengthy read. (See the links below or the attached PDF).

Normally, I (a conservative) am not in favour of a
person wiggling out of their contractual obligations (read: Student Debt), but
since students were obscenely over-taxed via skyrocketing tuition, a partial
refund is due, and Mr. Clarke's bill would effect such a change. (Also, lenders
& colleges would be less likely to illegally price-gouge students, as is the
current situation, if they knew students could defend
themselves.)

Presently, interest and fees can double or triple a
College Loan, which is already about 8 to 10 times the Free Market Value of
college (as computed in my research paper, linked above), meaning a student
could pay triple “ten times,” or thirty (yes, 30) times what a college education
is worth, all the while **liberal** educators in Higher Ed feature “million
dollar” college presidents, “million dollar” coaches (which should not be:
Education, not sports, should be the focus), 6-figure tenured professors, and
useless liberal building project, and other expenditures.

A liberal higher ed administrator never found a tax
he did not like to spend on a 'pet project.'

Actually, we should heed the call of Rep. Ron Paul
(R-TX-14th), who has called on 'phasing out' the Student Loan
programs, and getting the Federal Government **out** of Higher Education, and
letting the Free Market have free reign, so that the market would drop, and
tuition would, once again, become affordable.

This would do two things:

It would save a load of taxpayer monies that would
not need to be expended on making or guaranteeing loans,
and,

It would save students tons of money, as tuition
would drop like a rock.

Two other things would happen:

Banks and other lenders would be very unhappy they
could not pillage students and longer; and,

Colleges & Universities would have to live
within their means, as they did in the past, when America's colleges were the
top in the world, and liberals did not have free reign to loot the kitty and
rape taxpayers for stupid liberal projects.

I do not “hate” banks (I am a conservative
Republican, remember), but they must not get more than their fair share, through
“legal theft” and onerous usury and fees.

Likely, the Congressman's thoughts on HR4170(2011)
will be similar to his views on HR2028(2012), so I would like to get feedback on
my concerns on 4170, more especially since it is the older of the 2 bills.
Nonetheless, if I have made some good points, Kim, perhaps Rep. Smith can “Reach
across the isle” to his Democratic colleague, Rep. Clarke of Michigan, and
co-sponsor this bill, and review my it, in light of my
concerns.

While I AM not perfect, nonetheless, I am a
conservative writer, blogger, and voter, and a conservative Christian, and I do
NOT seek a 'Free Handout' for students –only their just due. (I'd go to bat for
the banks if the roles were reversed, and they became victimised, just as I did
for the late Theresa 'Terri' Schiavo, in which case I nearly won my landmark
case, losing a bitter 4-3 split decision before The Supreme Court of
Florida.)

Thank you for your time and efforts here, Kim. I
endeavor to make Rep. Smith and his colleagues and staff feel welcome as we
address these matters and venture into the undiscovered country – the future. I
eagerly await your response, and I value the thoughts and concerns of Mr. Smith
and his colleagues.

PS: As I have mentioned a few people in my email, I
shall include them a Bcc (Blind Carbon Copy).

Robert Applebaum was the source of one of the
links above, and he offered input and research assistance to Rep. Clarke for
writing HR4170(2011).

Alan Collinge, also blind cc'ed, is the author of
the group shown in the attached screen shot; Mr. Collinge is also a consumer
rights advocate who supports HR2028(2012).

I am including myself 'file copies.' All the eyes
of the world are upon your office, and I wish you well, as you address this
matter.

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was
silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was
not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not
a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for
me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and
Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper
&Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the
American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and
Family Publications.Some versions have Mr. Niemöller
saying: "Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was
a Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he
DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews
first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped,
&other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get
"practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their
neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "Speak up now or
forever hold your peace!"-GWW